-255x286.jpg "EWTN")
AMARILLO, Texas (CNA/EWTN News) — The Diocese of Amarillo confirmed that despite an invitation from Bishop Patrick Zurek, Father Frank Pavone did not meet with him on Oct. 13 and has instead asked for mediation.
“I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway,” Father David Deibel, canon lawyer for Father Pavone and Priests for Life, said in an Oct. 14 statement.
“All of us want this entire process to be carried out in private rather than through the media.”
On Oct. 6, Bishop Zurek had invited Father Pavone to come to his office and explained that his actions in the situation are tied to his pastoral concern for the national director of Priests for Life.
His invitation to meet privately with Father Pavone was the latest move after he called the priest back to the Amarillo diocese from his pro-life ministry in New York.
The Amarillo Globe-News reported, however, that by 5pm Thursday — diocesan office closing time — Father Pavone had failed to arrive.
“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Bishop Zurek told the Globe-News. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”
On the afternoon of Oct. 14, Father Pavone tweeted a link to a statement from Father Deibel, who said he advised Father Pavone to not meet with Bishop Zurek because the bishop has allegedly not responded to requests for mediation.
“The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking,” Father Deibel said.
“Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators,” he added. “Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.”
Father Deibel also accused Bishop Zurek of asking to meet one-on-one with Father Pavone and telling the priest to not write or speak of the meeting publicly.
“Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese,” Father Deibel said.
A response to the statement by Father Deibel from the diocese has not yet been issued.
The situation involving Father Pavone and his ministry with Priests for Life first became public when Bishop Zurek’s issued a strongly-worded letter to his fellow bishops on Sept. 9. The bishop said in the letter that he had suspended Father Pavone from public ministry outside the diocese, beginning Sept. 13.
He cited “deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life (PFL) organization.”
After the bishop’s suspension became public, Father Pavone produced professional audits of Priests for Life for the years 2005-2010, which he said were sent to the diocese every year. While the organization did well in previous years, Priests for Life ran a $1.4 million deficit in 2010.
Meanwhile, Father Pavone is appealing his suspension from active ministry outside the diocese to the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy and is denying charges that he disobeyed the bishop and failed to have Priests for Life audited.
Bishop Zurek clarified in an Oct. 6 statement that ultimately, he wants “what is best for all organizations that support and promote those teachings that come from the heart of the Catholic Church on the dignity and gift of human life.”
Jimmy Akin: 10 Things You Need to Know About Advent
Comments
Post a Comment
Something is inherently wrong with Fr. Pavone if he is unwilling to meet with his Bishop. He swore obedience to him and you are NOT on equal standing with him. You must obey. He should meet with him regardless of what is being said publicly. Please Fr. Pavone, meet with your Bishop for the sake of your ministry and the faithful. God has put the Bishop there for a reason and you shouldn’t be playing this canonical gamesmanship as your first approach.
Why should a Priest meeting with his Bishop need a canon lawyer? Something is very wrong here. Fr. Pavone’s fans send out outrageous e-mails demanding help to ‘free’ Fr. Pavone. His followers protest in front of the Bishop’s residence. Do Fr. Pavone’s fans really think this helps his image or the image of the Church which has already been sullied? In the midst of all this anguish, not just for Fr. Pavone but for his supporters and for pro-lifers and for the Church, fr. Pavone is sitting in his ‘prison cell’ furiously sending out e-mails urging his fans to send him money, lots of money, the most money they can afford saying that if we don’t send him large amounts of money, babies could die. This is disgraceful - Fr. Pavone’s situation will not harm the pro life movement or babies in the womb - what will do harm is if Fr. Pavone puts his work before his Priesthood, if he continues to defy his Bishop, if he continues to allow his fans to accuse the Bishop of vile things even of trying to destroy Fr. Pavone. Father Pavone should just go and meet with his Bishop. He says he can look for another Bishop to do what he wants - that is what will so harm to others. Fr. Pavone should just stop sending out long, badgering e-mails telling people to send him money and meet quietly and respectfully with his Bishop. We know what happened with Fr. Eutenauer and Fr. Corapi…let’s pray for all Bishops and Priests.
abimopectore: Fr. Pavone is being advised on the proper way to handle a dispute with his Bishop. Who is really playing games? We don’t know, but even the Bishop had to admit that Fr. Pavone was a priest in good standing. There are people who are pushing the liberal agenda within the Church and without. They are attacking anyone who speaks up and they are attacking character, financial well-being, peace, people associated with you, anything they can.. If the Bishop is following the true faith it will come out. If it is Fr. Pavone, that will come out too. If they both are following it but in the unique way God called them each to follow it, that will come out too. They do not see things the same and at this time in our faith history doing things carefully is wise. Abuse of power is rampant. And abused power is not lawful power.
Can we see how these celebrity priests are getting in same type of trouble that televangelists were and are? Please, you are priests of the living God. Turn your backs on the people and face Christ.
Pam,
His obedience to Holy Mother Church and his Bishop is what is CRITICAL. He is NOT on equal standing with the Bishop. Fr. Pavone or his adviser(s) is NOT the one who gets to set down the rules with the Bishop. The Bishop has the authority and sole discretion and Fr. Pavone needs to follow Canon 273. Surely, you should know this. As long as he continues his defiance this will NOT end well. His Bishop has been put there for a reason and I don’t see what a straight forward meeting has to do with a “liberal” agenda or not. You’re muddling the discussion with bringing these issues up. Fr. Pavone should directly go to his Bishop and speak to him about these things and not us. He swore a vow of obedience and he needs to step up to the plate as his Bishop has asked him.
” CHAPTER VIII.—LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
CHAPTER IX.—HONOUR THE BISHOP.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.
—Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Smyraeans”
What might St. Ignatius think of this?
I’m reminded of this Patristic writing at this time.
CHAPTER VIII.—LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
CHAPTER IX.—HONOUR THE BISHOP.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.
—Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Smyraeans
What might St. Ignatius think of this?
My candid opionin on this matter, which I have been following is this. No one really understands the mind of the actors, only God. It is possilbe that Bishop zurek may have his own agenda or acting on wrong information from distractors of PFL. To me i think the problem got to this stage due to some personal grievances between the Bishop and Fr Frank. It could also be out of jealousy hidden in the name of spiritual Guidance. There have been so many good initiatives throughout the history of the church which has been laid off or killed by some Bishop due to envy, ego and human pride. In any case obedience first. Fr Frank should have given the Bishop a benefit of doubt, and meet with him, only God can make good things out of bad situation. Where is the hand of God in all these issues? Relationship between a priest and his bishop can be frosty sometimes and most of the time the bishops assumes the imperial power and set to destroy the baby and the bath. Mother of Good Cousel, PRAY FOR US!
I believe that a mediator is definitely needed. I also believe that Bishop Zurek should have kept this meeting private. But once it was made public, I think Father Pavone did the right thing because the Bishop would have definitely made a statement about it. I do wonder what he would have said because the stories coming out of the Diocese has been nothing but contradictory. I was once told by a very wise man, “Never go into a meeting by yourself.”
It is quite obvious that over this past year, other strong Pro-Life voices on the national stage have been silenced. The last voice was Father Pavone and I knew that the liberals and progressives would be coming after him. Could it be that his Pro-Life voice just might have an impact on next year’s election. Just saying! I also know that some in the church, including some in the hierarchy, are staunch D’s and voted for Barrack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in the history of this country. See attached link - http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/
You seem to forget that a bishop can abuse of his power. Fr. Pavone is just protecting himself from it and is doing right and has the right in the Catholic Church. There are no reasons why he has been called in his diocese. The Bishop has private matters he says, but did not say it publicly while the case is now public. Where people can have many suspicions. That’s not good.
While Fr. Pavone should meet with his bishop despite the obvious abuse of his authority by the bishop, it is also clear that Bishop Zurek is trying to make an example of Fr. Pavone. It is actions like these that make me say that I can not imagine how giving an irrevocable, permanent oath of obedience to such a man would bring me closer to Christ. Consider this when discussing the vocaions crisis. I am sure I am not alone.
Nothing is clear. Just pray.
Just once I would like to see the Bishop for the Diocese of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, demand under obedience as a Catholic a meeting with them to explain their actions contrary to Catholic teaching, why don’t we ever see that?
I don’t know if Pavone’s lawyer was right to advise him to avoid the meeting. It seems the tone was set when the Bishop delcared in writing that Father Pavone was “suspended”, then later amended this to declaring he was a priest in good standing. And still there is no specific charge against Father Pavone except that he is somehow incorrigable and disobedient. If the Bishop merely wished to guide the ministry the manner he has chosen is heavy-handed at best. In a business environment, basically saying someone is fired (i.e suspended from ministry) back-tracking and then restricting one’s work duties while not providing clarification on the issue would likely be considered a harrassing or abusive work-environment. Granted things are different within the church still I can understand why Father Pavone would be nervous about a one on one meeting. You see what happens when after the meeting the Bishop says, “I am delighted he saw things my way has admitted his wrong doing and is planning on leaving his pro-life ministry for the time.” Then what, you call the bishop a liar. That just worsens things. I don’t think a witness was an unreasonable request. As there hasn’t been any clear scandal here, as I recall the Bishop basically just saying he thinks Pavone is vain and handling his finances poorly, though without offering any clarity, I certainly don’t feel any anger or outrage towards Father Pavone. This is just another very sad, sign of the times to see such a public acrimonious dispute over a single priest in good standing, while around us the culture of death with its wars and abortions laughs all the way to the bank.
I don’t know, as father Pavone is in charge of significant wealth and has not taken a vow of poverty perhaps he is getting a double dose of the vow of obedience. Well again I hope this blows over quickly and is seen by all parties as a misunderstanding that can be worked through without fanfare. Who knows if the good father is seen upon this scrutiney to have done nothing wrong and remained fatihful and obedient (as he has entirely been so far) to legitimate church authority, perhaps his mission, from all this exposure, will grow many fold.
Is the bishop behaving in accordance with the way a way a bishop should conduct business? Running to the media every five minutes about Fr. Frank’s whereabouts, meetings, etc., is certainly not the proper behavior of a bishop. Respect for a bishop is one thing. Prudence is another.
First, I think you’re all right about obedience to the Bishop. In a body such as the Church, a family, it is of utmost importance.
Secondly, though, when one is being accused, even in a family, it is NEVER wise to go in alone—I’ve experienced personally the subtle, behind-the-scenes process a ‘bishop’ (from protestant experience, not Catholic) can do with asking YOU to keep quiet then running around publically giving his “view” on what is going on. I don’t know Biship Zurek, and I must give him the benefit of the doubt (8th commandment on not bearning false witness and all), but it seems odd that if he’s really trying to act in the best interest of the Church, then he’s being too vocal about it at this point. Not saying its nefarious, or sinister or diabolical, just odd.
Third, even in a family/body such as the Church, there is this thing called “Canon Law.” Why? Because any organization/community needs rules and guidelines and procedures for protection from sinister behavior - on the part of priests AND bishops (bishops are priests, after all, and priests are men, all subject to shortcomings and confusions just like the rest of us). Fathre Pavone is in his right to seek counsel and protection under Canon Law. He can choose not to do so and become a martyr, maybe, but we’re not to choose it. If his Canon jurist is correct that he agreed to the meeting but only with mediation, or that the decision to make it a ‘private’ meeting was prematurely and intentionally publicized to force his hand, then he is doing the right thing at this point.
In sum, like Fr. Corapi before him and dozens of others, we don’t know all the facts. We can only wait and see how the official and authorized procedures invoked here play out. Unlike the aforementioned situation, at least Fr. Pavone HAS complied in part, coming to his home diocese, and at least, it appears, is willing to do whatever takes to PROPERLY and SAFELY (for all involved, even Priests for Life) to see this resolved. I will also posit that, contrary to any other information, Bishop Zurek is doing the same.
The patristic quotes are spot on, but so is Jesus’ own statement to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents. Both parties can approach this with both attitudes and who are we to judge one way or the other.
Obedience to the local bishop must prevail.
None of us knows the entire truth of this situation…perhaps not even those most directly involved. Father Pavone is following the path that has been circumscribed BY THE CHURCH in matters of CONFLICT between a priest and his bishop by use of a canon lawyer. He is acting in good faith and it is presumptious and nonsensical to be reciting St. Thomas Aquinas et al as if we know anything. This is privileged information at the current time…none of this belongs in the public domain at this point in time…and would not be if Bishop Zurik had not called attention to his request for a scheduled meeting to the press. Talk about throwing down the gauntlet. Why he did that publically is a question all might be asking. There seems to be a bit of game-playing here with the future of not only Father Pavone but the pro-life movement. For some bishops this has become too incendiary an issue. Some bishops deserve obedience from their priests more than others. Others have lost credibility by virtue of their own questionable activities. We have a bishop currently under indictment for questionable behavior. Bishops are not infallible. This is a matter for patience and prayer for those concerned about justice. Too many good priests have been thrown under the bus by their bishop for no other reason it would seem than to flex their spiritual pectorals. Is this any way to encourage young men to the priesthood of the Catholic Church. By encouraging a public spectacle? Pray good people that the voice of God might be heard by all involved.
Barb 548 said “Could it be that his (Fr. Pavone)Pro-Life voice just
might have an impact on next Year’s election.”
His “voice” certainly did have an impact on the election of George W.
Bush’s first term. On the pages of the N.C.Register there appeared a picture of Fr. Pavone and George W. Bush with bold headlines,
GEORGE BUSH IS PRO LIFE.
Would someone tell me what GWB did for the babies to challenge Roe vs.
Wade. Two Supreme Court Justices have never been tested in this
regard. I doubt that Fr. Pavone would promote the only candidate
in “next year’s election” who is 100% pro life and has delivered 4000 babies alive.
“I look upon the courage which the Lord gave me to fight the devils as one of the greatest favors that He has bestowed upon me. It is very wrong for a soul to behave like a coward or to fear anything except offending God, since we have an all-powerful King and a Lord so mighty that He can do everything and make all men His subjects.”-Teresa of Avila, Life
Who is the divider? Who is the Father of Lies? Who has his hand in the disruption of our society? Who is cheering when the Culture of Life is attacked?
Why did the Bishop call back Fr. Pavone back knowing that he would not be there to greet him and why didn’t he call Fr. Pavone and tell him to meet with him instead of making a public announcement that he “wanted” to have him at his mansion? Read the lives of the saints and you will see that there were very many bishops trying to control God’s saints, and not too few of these bishops were finally excommunicated or resigned. There is a lot more going on here that we don’t know about and to try to give a Priest a black eye without just cause is very sinful. +JMJ+
Apologies for the double post by the way. I thought it didn’t go through the first time.
Why should a Priest meeting with his Bishop need a canon lawyer?Something is very wrong here.Fr. Pavone’s fans send out outrageous e-mails demanding help to free Fr. Pavone. His followers protest in front of the Bishop’s residence. Do Fr. Pavone’s fans really think this helps his image or the image of the Church which has already been sullied? In the midst of all this anguish, not just for Fr. Pavone but for his supporters and for pro-lifers and for the Church, fr. Pavone is sitting in his prison cell sending out e-mails urging his fans to send him money, lots of money, the most money they can afford saying that if we don’t send him large amounts of money, babies could die. This is disgraceful. Fr. Pavone’s situation will not harm the pro life movement or babies in the womb. What will do harm is if Fr. Pavone puts his work before his Priesthood, if he continues to defy his Bishop, if he continues to allow his fans to accuse the Bishop of vile things even of trying to destroy Fr. Pavone. Father Pavone should just go and meet with his Bishop. He says he can look for another Bishop to do what he wants - that is what will so harm to others. Fr. Pavone should just stop sending out long, badgering e-mails telling people to send him money and meet quietly and respectfully with his Bishop. We know what happened with Fr. Eutenauer and Fr. Corapi…let’s pray for all Bishops and Priests.
Coming on the heels of Father Eutenauer and Father Corapi, I don’t blame Father Pavone for wanting a third person in a meeting with his bishop. I think it is a reasonable request since there have been so many contradictory statements from the diocese. I do not know Bishop Zurek and what his prolife convictions are. . .all the more reason for caution and prayer!!
Boy, this is really starting to look like an episode of “Law and Order,” where the suspect’s lawyer confronts the cops and tells them the interrogation is over—and then hands Prosecutor Jack McCoy a copy of a “Motion to Suppress” some damning item of evidence seized illegally by the cops. The upshot is that the TV viewer, at this point, is not getting the impression that the suspect is innocent. That’s the same impression I’m starting to get in regard to Father Pavone. Maybe it would be wise to withhold giving to Priests for Life until this is straightened out, as the bishop has suggested.
It seems though, the only benefited from this situation, as usual, is the public. People ready to take the place of a severe judge and accuse without even knowing what is going on in the soul of the persons involved in the matter.
It is this attitude of certain “Catholics,” who are waiting to be canonized at the end of the year, that pushes faithful out of the Church of Christ. No wonder the public media and the enemies of the Universal Church is rejoicing at the expense of irresponsible Catholics and call us HYPOCRITES because we do not face evil together but take sides.
Shame on all those who point their fingers toward the sinner while their own souls have, perhaps, more tarnish than anybody else.
St. Teresa of Avila, pray for us!
Dear Father Pavone,
you are creating the scandal here. Please quietly submit to your bishop to whom you promised obedience. The fight for the children in the womb, Priest for Life, Project Rachel, etc. will not go under because you are not at the helm, at least for now. The Holy Spirit is at the helm and you might get in the way. The bishop, for what ever motivation he has called you to the diocese, is under the direction of the Hl Spirit and if he makes wrong decisions, it is he who must anwer for it. You are first and foremost a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, that is to offer the sacraments,-sacrifice. Anyone can lead your organization, but only you as a priest can dispence the Sacraments. Please remember that! Please put you own hurt aside, join this sacrifice of yours with Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and watch the Culture of Life flourish! Only you can end this dispute, which has grown into a scandal and is harming everybody, by humbly meeting with your bishop, humbly and obediently accepting the bishops advice as coming from the Holy Spirit and quietly wait on the Lord.
My prayers are with you, with your bishop and for a better tomorrow!
Re: “never go into a meeting by yourself” Sounds great, Barb, except for the fact that we are to believe as faithful Catholics Fr. Pavone wouldn’t be alone in the meeting but with God and Bp. Zurek. Obama, D’s and lifenews have nothing to do with what is holy, proper and expected—a priest to obey and respect his Bishop.
Our teams’ eyes have now been opened by Fr. Pavone’s refusal, obstinence and disrespect. It’s official: something’s rotten in Denmark. And no matter how many millions of babies could be saved today from being maimed, this has to be rightfully resolved.
What is going on in Texas?
This is the second time in just a few months that a well known, effective priest has been shut down. Are there some secret rules in place in Texas that the rest of don’t know about? From the outside it sure looks like they don’t approve of priests that are making great strides in evangelizing. I thought that is what the pope wanted.
Why would a bishop send out letters to all U.S. bishops announcing what he did without first talking to Fr. Pavone? Why would he embarrass Fr. Pavone and cast doubt about him to the bishops, clergy and laity, and then go on vacation causing Fr. Pavone to return to his diocese and wait for the bishop to return weeks later for their meeting? Something smells very fishy, especially with the most important election coming up in our country next year. Does anybody know what party the bishop is registered in?
I would have more sympathy for the Bishop if he had not deleted his last audit from the diocesan web site.
The auditor opinion laid out concern about the diocese’s ability to be an ongoing operation from the financial point of view.
Why was the audit deleted? It does not look good for the Bishop.
So much for obedience. It’s clearly time for a full investigation of what’s going on with the tangle of organizations operating under the PFL umbrella.
Ditto Stilbeieve….........I am ask myself the same question.
I believe that Bishops are communicating with each other now because there have been so many issues. Someone mentioned Fr. Corapi and Fr. Eutenaeur…why? Are we to believe that the Bishops were wrong in their cases? A Priest does not need a lawyer when he meets with his Bishop. I don’t know what is the substance of this situation but I see that Bishops are condemned if they do nothing and they are condemned if they do something. Fr. Pavone’s Bishop is not the one sending out massive amounts of e-mails asking for huge sums of money. If. Fr. Pavone’s affairs are in order, then he should be at peace and meet with his Bishop. If there is something not quite right in his situation, he should still meet with his Bishop and make it right. A Priest in an inner city Parish near where I live was recently found to have stolen a million dollars from the parish. If that Priest’s Bishop had asked for an accounting, he would have been condemned; because he did not ask for an accounting, he is condemned. By the way, Fr. Pavone’s Bishop had made arrangements long before all this happened to be out of the country. All he asked of Fr. Pavone was to take a kind of quiet retreat in preparation for their upcoming meeting. Instead, Fr. Pavone continues to inundate us with e-mails demanding huge sums of money or babies will die. Some here are insinuating that the Bishop might belong to another political party than Fr. Pavone’s - or that he might be anti-life or….is this going to happen to every Bishop who asks to meet with a Priest in his diocese??? Some ask why the Bishop wanted Fr. Pavone to meet him at his ‘mansion’ - what does that mean? We need to stop with these insinuations and let the HOly Spirit work His way in all this…
Catherine - You said, “And no matter how many millions of babies could be saved today from being maimed, this has to be rightfully resolved.” I read that sentence and was appalled. Rightfully resolved takes precedent over saving millions of babies? - you’ve got to be kidding. I hope the Vatican gets involved and moves Father Pavone from Amarillo to another Diocese with a Bishop who understands that the lives of millions of babies is the most important issue. God creates - satan destroys!
Liz - You said, “Two Supreme Court Justices have never been tested in this
regard.” The reality is that the Court is now made up of 4 Libs., 4 Conservatives and 1 Turncoat (Kennedy). President Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, 2 Pro-Life Judges. Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion President in the history of our country appointed Kagan and Sotomayor, 2 pro-abortion Judges.
And re: President Bush’s record on life, read the attached article - http://www.cnsnews.com/node/42072
Let’s put this in perspective. If it was a common person and not a priest, then any “alleged” criminal activity would demand legal council in all proceedings. So, why shouldn’t Fr Pavone be any different. If he has the option of canon lawyer to speak on his behalf, why not?
There DOES seem to be more to the story than what we’re reading unless you know the parties involved personally.
I just hope that no matter what happens to Fr Pavone, that Priests for Life will continue their good work.
To stilbelieve…you have it all wrong. First of all, a Bishop has a right to notify other Bishops of a serious situation with one of his priests. And the Bishop had already scheduled a trip before all this broke and all he asked was that Fr. Pavone take some time off - a little retreat of prayer and silence in preparation for their meeting. You speak of something smelling fishy - what smells/seems fishy is the fact that Fr. Pavone continues to send out a massive amount of e-mails urging people to send him money, the most amount of money possible warning that if we fail to do this, babies will die…that sounds fishy. I don’t know why the Bishop did what he did, I don’t know why Fr. Pavone refuses to meet with his Bishop unless a lawyer is present…I just know that we need to pray that God will bring about a postive solution to all this. In these times, we need absolute clarity and transparency - on the part of all…so let’s just pray that God will have His way…
Why do we keep trusting the media and the bishops to tell us the truth? Both are in bed with the liberals who love abortion. What should one expect from the lame-stream media that hates the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement? This article is full of speculation and innuendo. PFL is an international organization so why is she surprised that PFL gave money to entities in Europe, like the Vatican. How come we only read articles speculating about PFL? How come nobody is asking what are the bishop’s motives for trying to destroy the pro-life movement. For almost 40 years these bishops have remained mostly silent and have done little to save babies. In fact, if the bishops had been working hard from the beginning we most likely would not even have abortion today. Sadly, because the bishops aren’t doing their job, priests like Father Pavone and laymen have to do their job for them. I wonder how much the bishop is paying this reporter? We keep hearing how this is supposed to be a private matter between the bishop and Father Pavone and the only people we hear in speaking about it is the bishop and this reporter. Anyone want to take bets on who’s payroll the reporters on?
The problem in the United States is that the pew-dwellers do not trust the Episcopacy. They have a poor history of looking after the flock when the abuse scandal occurred in the 90’s. What has changed between this bishop and the previous one is that the previous one asked for Fr. Pavone to come to his diocese and this one wants to punish him for being there. I think that there is bad blood between them. Fr. Pavone’s problems may or may not be due to his running of Preists for Life, but his involvement in the Canadian child case may be the reason why he is being pressured to become more obedient. I agree that obedience is critical in the Catholic hierarchy of things, but this seems to be very heavy handed.
The comment that Bp. Zurek wants to meet personally with Fr. Frank is simply inappropriate. All of this bad blood ceased to be a private issue between them when Bp. Zurek long ago made his comments public to his fellow bishops! Many of us want to see justice done for Fr. Frank, but it looks as if this is not about justice at all. The bishop’s clerical assistants say that Fr. Frank is not suspended, and that there are no charges pending against him, then why is he confined to a convent miles out of Amarillo? If there is some kind of issue over finances of PFL, or any other operation of Fr. Frank, then let the charges be made, for God’s sake, and get on with the trial! Unfortunately, Fr. Frank and the American pro-life movement have been deeply hurt by all this unnecessary malice, and there is no easy and honorable solution any more!! Just hurt all around. Let the canonically mediated solution begin. We need a real man of God here to arbitrate.
Bishop Zurek is Fr. Pavone’s superior and as per canon 273, Fr. Pavone should meet with his superior as he promised when he was ordained. Here’s a blog spot by Dr. Peters that is well balanced with respect to the reported information and provides clarity for those looking from the outside in:
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-mediation-way-to-resolve-zurek.html
Unless Fr. Pavone submits himself to his Bishop, I can’t see how this will be resolved appropriately. Pray for both Bishop Zurek and Fr. Pavone.
A more sober approach:
http://servantofcharity.blogspot.com/2011/11/call-for-prudence.html
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.